The result was keep. causa sui ( talk) 16:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails general notability guidelines and WP:BIO. No evidence of coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article are mostly genealogical, and even they can't seem to figure out if this is the right Norman Walker (underscoring the lack of notability). MastCell Talk 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
We have independent reliable sources for the historicitity of the man himself. Because of census records (ordinarily considered reliable sources) we are much more confident about when this guy lived and died than we are about when (say) Jesus lived and died. There will never be an article Historicity of Norman W. Walker, as there is Historicity of Jesus. But the existence of the article on the Historicity of Jesus, based as it is upon the problems with LACK of accurate and reliable information about Jesus, is no reason to propose the deletion of Jesus here on WP, is it? (If you think so, try it!). As to what proponents of various belief-systems say about Norman W. Walker, they are as accurate and reliable about THEMSELVES as are believers in any philosophy or religion (as accurate about what they believe as are various believers in things about Jesus, for example, though these things may have no accurate or reliable basis per se). That's long been a tenet of WP: we let believers speak for themselves about their beliefs, and assume they are accurate and reliable sources for same. I believe you've been down this road about alternative medicine itself, which in many ways is just one more religion? Have you not? Indeed, there are are things about orthodox medicine which have been taken on faith, and which turned out not to be true (the general goodness of statin drugs for everybody with high LDLs; the goodness of HRT for postmenopausal women, etc, etc, etc). S B H arris 19:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
My problem is that I'm not finding any sources about Norman W. Walker that are independent and reliable enough to build an encyclopedic biography. I don't doubt his historical existence, but historical existence alone isn't really sufficient for notability. I'm trying to figure out whether there are independent, reliable sources covering him, and I have failed to find such sources. In their absence, not only does he seem to fail the relevant notability guidelines, but more importantly, I don't see how one can write a biography worthy of a serious encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 22:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
A comment on WP:ATA (WP:WAX) and WP:OTHERSTUFF (WP:OSE) is that these essays (not guidelines or policies) are self-contradictory and poorly-concieved. Both of them assert that comparisons with standard practice are arguments to avoid, while at the same time admitting that such arguments are all that separate current notability policies-in-practice from others (for example, intrinsic notability of all high schools, vs. no such thing for junior high schools), and that as such these arguments are not only perfectly valid, but the ONLY arguments that exist to defend present policy-in-practice for many notability categories. As self-contradictory and therefore illogical essays, I personally think that WP:ATA and WP:OSE should themselves be avoided (and all mention of them avoided) until the people who use them and think about them do some thinking about just what it is that they actually want to say. In their essays. Once this has been done, perhaps we can downgrade them from "stupid essays" to merely "essays." But they still won't be policy or guideline until incorporated into policy or guideline. S B H arris 18:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply